How comfortable are you about "Autonomous Cars"

[Philc2001]

Autonomous vehicles are inevitable I'm afraid. Both a blessing and a curse. I expect there will be many teething problems as they mature, but eventually they will become ubiquitous. Much of the technology for autonomous vehicles already exists... emergency braking, lane following, adaptive cruise control, etc. Frankly, I used to hate the idea of a computerized car nanny, but these days with texting and driving - we can't get it soon enough. There is just no other way to keep bad and stupid drivers from injuring or killing other innocent, mature and safe drivers.

You all see it everyday... driving with their phone in front of their face, drifting across their lane, putting makeup on at 70mph, making illegal u-turns on a highway onramp, running a red, making a turn across 3 lanes, sleeping behind the wheel, drunk driving, etc. People are just too self indulging to care about other drivers on the road. There was a time when I dreaded it, but after a few close calls and some lost friends, I now welcome it with open arms.

[Philc2001]

On 8/10/2016 at 8:01 AM, wabashcr said:

I like to drive, and I don't trust corruptible computers to navigate thousands of 2 ton missiles around each other.  Besides, who will I honk at and give the finger to when one of them inevitably cuts me off or drives too slowly in the fast lane?

I love to drive, so much so that my last 10 cars have all been manual shift (though it drives my wife nuts). I've raced autocross and time trials for years. I drive 100 mile commute daily.  My hobby car is in the garage not 30 feet from where I'm sitting. 

The trouble is, without fail every week I have near misses where I have to evade a collision because of someone distracted or doing something stupid. I've had two very close calls in the past two weeks where ignorant drivers making illegal maneuvers nearly crashed me - and they think they were in the right! They show no remorse whatsoever.

Just a couple weeks ago my sister was on a 2-lane highway with double solid line going around a bend, and a 26-year old in a pickup truck was passing at a high rate of speed coming at her head-on. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured, but both cars were totalled. Turns out he was uninsured, and had a suspended license. That could have been my sister's ending.

There was a tragic accident in my neighborhood a few months ago, 4 teens were pushing their stalled car, 2 in back and 2 on the side. A 21-year old girl coming home at 1:00am, on her cell phone, didn't see them. She struck the two teens in the back at 70mph (in a 30mph zone) killing them instantly, and injured the other two. 

Last one - this happened just a week ago, a co-worker of mine was driving on I-95 near West Palm at 75 mph in the right lane, minding his own business. He was struck from behind by another motorist at more than 110mph (police estimate). My coworker's car was totalled, sending him and his wife to hospital for an afternoon. The other driver didn't stop and is still at large. 

Maybe fully autonomous is a bit of stretch, but let's face facts, we all get distracted once in a while, and I'm sure most of us have driven a bit tipsy or sleepy - which makes a good case for safety driving aids. But, then you also have a lot of people who should never be allowed to pilot a 2 ton missile, not even up and down their own driveway, let alone at highway speeds in heavy traffic, while texting. How else can you sort that out?

[Fugu]

6 hours ago, Philc2001 said:

But, then you also have a lot of people who should never be allowed to pilot a 2 ton missile, not even up and down their own driveway, let alone at highway speeds in heavy traffic, while texting. How else can you sort that out?

Agreed. But penalties are really ridiculous. That's the main problem. But woe betide you, you exceed the parking time of your ticket for 5 minutes, or briefly halt in a no-stopping zone for loading....

[gweilgi]

9 hours ago, Philc2001 said:

Maybe fully autonomous is a bit of stretch, but let's face facts, we all get distracted once in a while, and I'm sure most of us have driven a bit tipsy or sleepy - which makes a good case for safety driving aids. But, then you also have a lot of people who should never be allowed to pilot a 2 ton missile, not even up and down their own driveway, let alone at highway speeds in heavy traffic, while texting. How else can you sort that out?

Of course we all get distracted once in a while (or a lot, if we listen to talk radio ) and yes, we all do dumb stuff behind the wheel now and then.  Penalties and their enforcement help to manage and mitigate the risk.  Proper and ongoing driver education would help reduce the risk further.

But IMO, autonomous vehicles do not eliminate the risk.  What it does is change the risk profile.  Instead of a steady drip of accidents such as we have now, we will have very very few accidents ... and once in a while, when the computers go down, there will be a day of catastrophic blood-letting.  

Note also that autonomous vehicles will result in the removal of an important safety net: driver competence.  Over time, the vast body of road users will quite simply not gain the experience or even the basic knowledge to cope if and when the system fails them.  When our children have never learned how to drive let alone spent tens of thousands of miles behind the steering wheel in all sorts of road and traffic conditions, what the hell will they do if they are required to take charge?

[Fugu]

On 11/08/2016 at 2:25 PM, Ryan said:

When fully autonomous cars arrive, why own a car to have it sitting in a driveway or parking spot over 90% of the time, as we all do?

Why spend so much money on the car, tax and maintenance when it is useless to us most of the time, i.e. the times we're not in it?

Parking garages in cities, multi-story ones. Almost always the ugliest, most useless buildings in any city. They wouldn't be needed, free up the space, build parks. Same goes for street parking, free up the space for us. Have the cars go off somewhere to the outskirts when not in use or drive someone else around.

 

All very good points and arguments, Andy, I concur. But that all doesn't stand and fall with autonomous driving. There are systems in place doing the very services you are describing already today: Named taxi/cab, bus, tram, underground/metro, car-sharing etc.... And (side note) - regarding kids transportation, nowadays, parents seem to forget all too often about the simple option "bicycle"... It's working, people just have to make use of it. And don't let yourself be fooled - it all won't be cheaper without a driver.

And if autonomous driving comes along with more empty-running (as you are implying) it would drive costs and generate additional "ghost" traffic, so would be a rather poor development.

But we need to think further than that. The core issue, long-term, will remain - individual driving. Nowadays mostly for one single person moving one or two tons of dead mass (i.e. mostly less than 5-10 % effectively used payload! Poorest proportional wind- and rolling resistance etc.). On the long distance it's highly inefficient, on the short distance you don't really need it. I am not at all speaking against individual mobility, but we need to get back to a healthy proportion of individual and collective transport systems (I am intentionally not using "public" or "mass" transport here). And we urgently need to get cargo-logistics off the roads back on rail again! As I said before, all that R&D-money and state subsidies to car makers for autonomous driving should better be directed into perfectioning collective transport systems, making them more attractive, i.e more practical, comfortable, more versatile and flexible (even door-to-door) to use for the traveller. The more those systems will be adopted, the better and cheaper they will become for the individual. Only those systems are then really using less dead parking space in cities and suburbs, less energy, less land-use for infrastructure and less driving space on roads, fewer resources (for production and operation), and are producing fewer emissions, a.s.o....

On 11/08/2016 at 2:25 PM, Ryan said:

Simply, you won't have to pay for it when you're not using it, as we all do now.

Exactly, that's what I am doing right now. And it doesn't depend on autonomous systems! I don't own a car myself, use rental and car-sharing - when I need it. Statistically, one shared-car today on average spares > 4 individually owned cars! Potentially becoming more with wider acceptance! It's already here - just use it people! You bet, the car industry will do everything to avoid that the number of cars on the street will drop. Wrong means in the wrong hands.

Let me be provocative - it's as dead as a project can be. Just think about the 3-l-car, announced since the 80s. And what's the current fleet consumption? Had been on a steady rise since then. Hope for electro-mobility in the broad mass-market, then? Balderdash! - with respect to current technology - moving around 300-800 kg of battery is a blind alley, not to say it's plain idiotic. The fuel cell will be the sole efficient solution apart from externally powered systems, where the energy source itself will not have to be carried as part of the payload (noticed?.... railway, tram... it's existing....). Automated driving will come, yes, it's already there in certain niches, such as urban busses in an initial state, but not - never - will it come on the broad individual-'automobile' basis. I say, selfdriving will be here to stay. Companies like google, independent of the car industry, will probably be successful with certain products, but it will remain a niche sector and not be the general system.

But if attempted so, difficult ethical issues of emergency situations aside, it could only be achieved with a huge impact on individual flexibility and personal freedom, because those systems will have to be made safe. And that will be almost impossible for such a highly complex system, only to be achieved with disproportionately high efforts. Our current freedom of driving inevitably comes along with the wider acceptance of collateral damage, i.e. road casualties, the very circumstance we are currently bemoaning. An automated system wouldn't find acceptance with such casualties, they'd have to be excluded to 99.99% (check out the Tesla-case). Won't be possible, unless heavily restricted to certain routes, limited speeds, certain usage, times, and so on. And then we can directly stick with the public systems, as that will be way more efficient in all aspects than the pre-programmed, restrained indivdual vehicle. Just some unsorted food for thought.

You may call me 'TommyW', but let's speak again in 10 years from now...

 

 

[Fugu]

1 hour ago, gweilgi said:

Note also that autonomous vehicles will result in the removal of an important safety net: driver competence.

Won't be needed anymore, of course. Good point actually. "Car driving" skills will be going to be lost, becoming an outdated, useless competence.

[Fuzz]

9 minutes ago, Fugu said:

 And we urgently need to get cargo-logistics off the roads back on rail again!

 

 

Rail will help, but only over long distance (eg interstate & intercity) and in mass freight transport. The data doesn't stack up when you're talking about intracity transport. There are just not enough rail hubs to make it feasible or cost effective. People complain enough about cargo trains rolling by, screeching on passenger lines. There's even push back by the public (and some truckers) here in Sydney to stop container trains moving from Port Botany to the intermodal container yard in western Sydney. This would save so much congestion around the port and also lower the cost of container transport in Sydney (the cost to transport a 40' container from Port Botany to Minchinbury is AUD$800-$1000, more than the cost from China to Sydney). Some don't want the govt to spend money on dedicated rail lines for cargo (idiotic, I know). An underground rail line from Port Botany to the Yennora intermodal terminal would be worth the cost.

However, rail is not cost effective for less than container loads within a city. Trucks are still the most cost effective method to move pallet loads. Improving the road network, driver skills, restricting certain truck types to certain routes and lanes (eg no trucks on overtaking lanes unless absolutely necessary) and even making dedicated trucking lanes, will go a long way to improving freight transport.

1 minute ago, Fugu said:

Won't be needed anymore, of course. Good point actually. "Car driving" skills will be going to be lost, becoming an outdated, useless competence.

Driving skills need vast improvement now. The skills learned today to get a licence are woefully inadequate, considering the number of vehicles on the road. People seem to forget that driving in a privilege, not a right. Lets face facts, not everyone on the road today, should be on the road. The test should be made more difficult. with routine re-testing, to maintain skill levels and weed out those who are no longer competent. Personally, I am in favour of routine re-testing every 5 yrs when you renew your licence.

[Warren]

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 0:20 PM, Fuzz said:

The technology is still in its infancy, in my opinion. Until all cars are able to talk to each other, I would be very hesitant to rely on self-drive vehicles. The main problems I see with self-drive are; the number of old vehicles on the road, the age of GPS data (outdated and hasn't taken into account tectonic drift), and most importantly, the number of idiots on the road.

Bloody tectonic drift, don't get me started. The other night I had been enjoying the odd glass of red and I went to stand up to go to the kitchen and couldn't get my balance.

I remember thinking that if those tectonic plates weren't whizzing around so much I wouldn't have this problem.

[Fugu]

23 hours ago, Philc2001 said:

I love to drive, so much so that my last 10 cars have all been manual shift (though it drives my wife nuts). I've raced autocross and time trials for years. I drive 100 mile commute daily.  My hobby car is in the garage not 30 feet from where I'm sitting. 

Had a similar notion for years, but then learned to appreciate automatic gearbox. Nothing more fun than having a car with good torque, 4x4 and a swiftly shifting double-clutch transmission with zero thrust interruption. Just great! And can be driven relaxed and comfortable with low emission at the same time. Do your lady the favour....! And how would I do without it in congested traffic. Really don't miss the permanent stirring with the gear stick and getting a cramp in the calf from the permanent clutching in and out when in slow moving traffic...

Well the next logical step then might be autonomous dri..... haha

[Fugu]

11 hours ago, Fuzz said:

Rail will help, but only over long distance (eg interstate & intercity) and in mass freight transport. The data doesn't stack up when you're talking about intracity transport.

Agreed, primarily long-range, but that would help massively already. At least in Europe, where highways are virtually blocked from truck-traffic meanwhile.

For passenger transport, there are also new and excellent rail-bound systems (cable car, tram, sometimes in combination with interurban commuters, all barrier-free, zero emission) on shared space, serving the small-scale distribution within cities. Often, the degree of acceptance is just a matter of logistic fine-tuning (unfortunately, there are not always the people with the necessary brains, when it is in municipal hands...).

11 hours ago, Fuzz said:

There are just not enough rail hubs to make it feasible or cost effective.

Nothing that couldn't be improved! Before we get autonomous driving to work we should easily be able to change that.

 

11 hours ago, Fuzz said:

This would save so much congestion around the port and also lower the cost of container transport in Sydney (the cost to transport a 40' container from Port Botany to Minchinbury is AUD$800-$1000, more than the cost from China to Sydney). Some don't want the govt to spend money on dedicated rail lines for cargo (idiotic, I know).

Yep, the way to go. Needs to, inevitable if you ask me! Here are some highly successful entrepreneural initiatives going on. E.g. a cargo train for taking up truck trailers piggyback, linking Sweden transalpine, non-stop with Northern Italy, several times a week, what had been served by single trucks before. It's working, it's cost-efficient, it's profitable (it's growing) and replaces a lot of truck movements and emissions. The local distribution from and to the hubs is then being done by trucks again.

 

[Fugu]

10 hours ago, Warren said:

Bloody tectonic drift, don't get me started. The other night I had been enjoying the odd glass of red and I went to stand up to go to the kitchen and couldn't get my balance.

I remember thinking that if those tectonic plates weren't whizzing around so much I wouldn't have this problem.

Haha, Coriolis, Warren, you mixed it up, it's Coriolis, not tectonic movement! 

[Philc2001]

On 8/13/2016 at 7:29 PM, gweilgi said:

Note also that autonomous vehicles will result in the removal of an important safety net: driver competence.  Over time, the vast body of road users will quite simply not gain the experience or even the basic knowledge to cope if and when the system fails them.  When our children have never learned how to drive let alone spent tens of thousands of miles behind the steering wheel in all sorts of road and traffic conditions, what the hell will they do if they are required to take charge?

With advances in technology and reliability there is usually a tipping point where human skills are overcome by technological advancement. Google has already shifted their thinking, they have actually removed the steering wheel from their autonomous vehicles. We will one day reach a point where the reliability, precision, reaction time and decision making of autonomous vehicles will be so superior to human pilots, and then speeds and traffic rules evolve in such a way where human pilots would be at a huge disadvantage and dangerous. Commercial jetliners are almost at that point now, where they virtually fly themselves, and we see that pilot error is by far the leading cause of crashes.  

We advanced from the horse and buggy era to bicycles and then cars, which made horse riding skills obsolete. I don't think anyone here would argue that we should retain horse riding skills as a safety net today. The same will be true once autonomous cars take over.  

[Fuzz]

29 minutes ago, Philc2001 said:

 

We advanced from the horse and buggy era to bicycles and then cars, which made horse riding skills obsolete. I don't think anyone here would argue that we should retain horse riding skills as a safety net today. The same will be true once autonomous cars take over.  

You say that now, but when that massive solar flare/nuclear war/rogue asteroid/electromagnetic pulse/alien invasion wipes out all technology, you're gonna look pretty silly walking to town whilst I ride by on a horse.

[Philc2001]

You say that now, but when that massive solar flare/nuclear war/rogue asteroid/electromagnetic pulse/alien invasion wipes out all technology, you're gonna look pretty silly walking to town whilst I ride by on a horse.

So true

But in the meantime you look really silly in that tin foil hat


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fuzz]

28 minutes ago, Philc2001 said:

So true

But in the meantime you look really silly in that tin foil hat


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correction. Aluminium foil.

[PigFish]

I think that some of the analogies that I have read here recently are actually rather shortsighted and misplaced. Of course, I often disagree with people’s analogies.

 

There was certainly a time where the horse and buggy was more reliable, but that is not the point of the horse and buggy… Where the horse became obsolete is when it limited human mobility (freedom) and restricted it. It was the limited physical abilities of the horse and the labor requirements to maintain and use the animal that made the system obsolete. The horse became obsolete, not because it was a horse, but becomes it put a limit on freedom.

 

While I am sure that this obscure tangent will confound some, I believe that there will be little argument when you study advancement of mankind especially in the realm of transportation. When transpiration and control of it collide, there will be limited advancement!

 

So the question really is, will a autonomous vehicle expand man’s ability to convey himself or will the complexity of the system, the costs, the interference of governments, lawyers and liabilities, infrastructure and regulations foster freedom or stifle it?

 

It appears that there are those amongst us who enjoy the idea of mass transit. It is the most efficient as long as the passengers are like lemmings moving back and forth to a hub of human interest. Beyond that, it stifles freedom and has limited success. All one need do is look a the mass of taxis that exist within hubs of mass transit and see that it is limited. As usual we have differing views, a city view (general mass control of people and their endeavors) and a rural or open country view (fine if it works for me, but don’t screw with what works for me now and what I need to work).

 

As the topic evolves then, is it the goal of those in favor or the pilotless vehicle to be a form of controlled ‘mass’ transit, a ‘perceived’ benefit to the masses or an ‘actual’ benefit to the individual? Unless governments interfere and screw up yet another means of human expansion of freedom, I would say that it should be a success. Yet if the ‘mastermind’ sees that as a universal means to ‘force’ those that wish to me independent, dependent on yet another highly controlled system, it will be a failure! This does not mean that it won’t exist, it only means that it will exist as yet another form of human individualism doomed to be over-controlled, loathed and despised because it does not work as promised!

 

So, is the pilotless vehicle about expansion of freedom, or loss of it?

 

If the autonomous vehicle will always obey the posted speed limit, it will be a failure! No group will likely ever agree that they without exemption are subject to the rule of law. If you don’t believe me, just look at the prison populations.

 

If the expense spent on a vehicle does not allow you to convey faster, bigger, longer or different from your neighbor, if it does not define you though marketing, even the car manufacturers will eventually reject it... People will reject it! People will want this only as long as it does not become a 'lord' or 'backseat' driver to them. Ask yourself, how many of you appreciate your mother-in-law telling you how to drive? How would you like it if she were built into your car??? -LOL How are you going to feel about it when you are late, there is nothing but free space in front of you and your car is doing the speed limit?

 

 

My 2 cents. -Piggy

[Philc2001]

Interesting 

On 8/15/2016 at 0:32 PM, PigFish said:

 How are you going to feel about it when you are late, there is nothing but free space in front of you and your car is doing the speed limit?

 

 

My 2 cents. -Piggy

Interesting points. I think you have various consumers that would still spring for an autonomous car even if it was "governed", nobody would ever pay for an autonomous car that is hobbled, except perhaps the elderly, disabled, and parents that get a cars for their kids to go to school. But for many, the viability and appeal of a "governed" autonomous vehicle would be limited. If speed limits were automatically enforced and mandated, then why stop there, why not govern where and when you can use it, where you stop, where you can park, etc.

Given the origins and the nature of how cars have evolved, I do not see that as a likely outcome. But perhaps an incentive approach might work, like maybe a speed limit of 55mph for human pilots, and 100mph for autonomous pilots. Then I may consider it. 

[Fuzz]

It would be better to have an automated speed limited vehicle. The human factor is what causes traffic problems. Example: a guy accelerates quickly, brakes as he gets to close to the car ahead, causing the guy behind to tap his brakes. This sends a ripple effect down the line, causing each successive driver to apply their brakes, until the whole chain stops.

What's more annoying? Stop/start traffic or slow moving traffic?

[Fugu]

Oh, please! And where would you like that to be, Fuzz. Fixed, adapted, fuzzy-logic....?

Imagine situations, where you are suddenly not allowed to accelerate?! You don't know why and you can't influence it.

And if set very high, it wouldn't avoid the situations you are describing - those idiots manage to drive that flurry way at all speeds.

[Fugu]

I have been working in the field yesterday, having to drive on small dirt roads, farm tracks and even bits off-road, manouvering from spot to spot. Was reminded of this discussion here, and thought - How at all would this work autonomously?!"

[Fugu]

17 hours ago, Philc2001 said:

Iexcept perhaps the elderly, disabled, and parents that get a cars for their kids to go to school.

 

Great perspective, when all the elderly and kids will also drive individually in their own cars. What a crazy idea. Additonal traffic in the cities and even elementary schools will need large parking lots. There will be chaos when all those kids arrive at school at the same time. Even worse as it's now with all those heli-parents blocking the streets in front of schools when chauffeuring their (single) kid.

[Fuzz]

8 minutes ago, Fugu said:

Oh, please! And where would you like that to be, Fuzz. Fixed, adapted, fuzzy-logic....?

Imagine situations, where you are suddenly not allowed to accelerate?! You don't know why and you can't influence it.

And if set very high, it wouldn't avoid the situations you are describing - those idiots manage to drive that flurry way at all speeds.

And why would there be a need for acceleration? Speed limits are only put in place to limit the possibility of an accident due to road conditions, pedestrian activity, congestion, etc. In a fully automated system, the system would decide what is considered a safe speed limit based on certain criteria. Take automated warehouses as an example. In areas of no human activity, an AGV is set to move at a faster speed than in places where there are workers.

If you are going to be late for work, tough. Next time get up a bit earlier and leave on time. Hell, in an automated system, you could get live updates on travel times.

1 minute ago, Fugu said:

I have been working in the field yesterday, having to drive on small dirt roads, farm tracks and even bits off-road, manouvering from spot to spot. Was reminded of this discussion here, and thought - How at all would this work autonomously?!"

Already done. The military have been testing vehicles that can self drive over different types of terrain. The vehicle constantly scans the environment, adjusting to the conditions as necessary.

 

[KnightsAnole]

Just saw on the news this morning that ford anounced its to release a fully automated vehicle by 2021. Looks like Volvo is going to lease 100 fully automated vehicles next year..as in no steering wheel in the vehicle. I tend to be among those that like driving and I'm skeptical how long it will take before these are actually viable alternatives to manual driving but I suspect it will be a while. If one lives in a rural area, these won't be too necessary, but in the city during rush hour, this could reclaim an enormous amount of time for millions upon millions of people and potentially be a lot safer. The only way it will work though is if manually driven and automated cars can exist on the same road together safely. I seriously doubt automated cars will become mandatory in our lifetimes, if ever. Eventually the automation will become so good, the only liability on the road will be a manually driven car. it'll be a sad day when/if we can't drive around on the road and feel the freedom that comes with it. But by then, we will all have jet packs and fly.  

[PigFish]

1 hour ago, KnightsAnole said:

Just saw on the news this morning that ford anounced its to release a fully automated vehicle by 2021. Looks like Volvo is going to lease 100 fully automated vehicles next year..as in no steering wheel in the vehicle. I tend to be among those that like driving and I'm skeptical how long it will take before these are actually viable alternatives to manual driving but I suspect it will be a while. If one lives in a rural area, these won't be too necessary, but in the city during rush hour, this could reclaim an enormous amount of time for millions upon millions of people and potentially be a lot safer. The only way it will work though is if manually driven and automated cars can exist on the same road together safely. I seriously doubt automated cars will become mandatory in our lifetimes, if ever. Eventually the automation will become so good, the only liability on the road will be a manually driven car. it'll be a sad day when/if we can't drive around on the road and feel the freedom that comes with it. But by then, we will all have jet packs and fly.  

There are certain vehicles that need a driver upgrade... I am glad that Volvo recognized that they are one of them... -LOL

-Piggy

[Fugu]

6 hours ago, Fuzz said:

And why would there be a need for acceleration? Speed limits are only put in place to limit the possibility of an accident due to road conditions, pedestrian activity, congestion, etc. In a fully automated system, the system would decide what is considered a safe speed limit based on certain criteria.

So autonomous driving would mean then, we couldn't freely choose our travel speed anymore... Is that really what you all are looking for? Why then stick with the system "car" at all, I have to ask again?!!

If there were indeed a best safe-speed route taken, as you say (there is a tradeoff between safety and velocity - how will that decision be made, and - by whom?!!), then a major part of road users would try and push it at the same maximum travel speed, creating additional traffic problems. But if that were meant to be avoided, certain means will have to be installed to "stretch" traffic. Which algorithms will be set in to decide on who's coming first? Size/value of your car? "importance" of driver/passenger(s)?, first-come-first-served whether you'd be in need of it or not, or perhaps some future "road-velocity"-fee to be paid...?

6 hours ago, Fuzz said:

If you are going to be late for work, tough. Next time get up a bit earlier and leave on time.

Haha, and what if there was blocked traffic on the cruise and I want to make good for it. Let's remain realistic! We won't live in a sudden perfect world just because of the appearence of autonomous driving.

 

Autonomous offroad driving - military, yes, but in fact excellent example. Of course, it's there already, that's not the point. Hell, we are rovering the Mars, in completely unknown terrain - with a 9-min signal delay in remote control on top! For special applications, certainly a viable or even necessary approach. But why all this technical overkill for a bit of my simple off the road driving?! Necessary??! - Practicable? - Adequate for the task? For my brief cutting-short across a small patch of meadow or barren land? Or take even a simple backing up off the road onto the side-strip for a turn or for parking....?!! So I will really be forced to get a kind of 'Terra Max' equipment to do it in the bright future to come? Mind you, it will have to be at least as powerful as a human conductor, thus would come with a huge technical effort - while I am a so much simpler and more effective "sensoric" means for scanning my track for 'moleholes' or overgrown mud ground.... 

Really looking forward to that!